In his classic study of race in America in 1992, "Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal," Andrew Hacker includes a prescient description by the British statesman, Benjamin Disraeli:

"Two nations, between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thought, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets."

While Disraeli was speaking about class warfare in 19th-century England, the words are eerily relevant to conditions existing today between the black and white communities across America, despite significant, but incomplete, gains in race relations over the past 50 years.

Since last summer, when the possibility of an Obama presidency began to crystallize, there has been cautious optimism that America was finally ready to break through a barrier that many believed to be impenetrable: that he can succeed with an overwhelmingly white electorate where other highly attractive black candidates with impeccable credentials and cross-racial appeal, like Tom Bradley, Harvey Gantt, Ron Kirk, Carl McCall, and Harold Ford, have failed.

The Obama candidacy also presents an opportunity to bring the race question out of the closet. It's about time to resolve what has become not only an enduring contradiction, but a major shame: we declare the inalienable equality and liberty of all people while tolerating conditions of discrimination and oppression.

Who better to lead us through a period of reconciliation and discovery than a man who was born half white and half black, whose life experiences have been shaped and nurtured by family members and friends from diverse races, cultures, traditions, and mores?

Who else from among the original field of 16 presidential candidates has the broad global perspective to lead in a world that has been riven by generational, partisan, religious, and ethnic hostilities?

Who else has demonstrated the ability to assemble and activate a broad-based multi-racial coalition of young and old, affluent and working class, novices and political pros, idealists and realists, to form a winning majority in more than half of the states contested, red, blue and purple? This candidacy has been celebrated in the conservative and progressive media alike. The Wall Street Journal branded Obama the "great hope of white America," while Ebony magazine declared him the "proud son of black America."

One can only imagine how the combination of all of these skills can lead to the implementation of progressive public policies to restore this nation's economic and social vitality.

Obama would seem to be uniquely situated to change the trajectory of American politics and policies, at home and abroad. Except for a few mistakes that had caused only momentary distractions, he has been flawless in his preparation and execution.

At least that was the prevailing wisdom until a couple of weeks ago, when the controversy surrounding the Reverend Jeremiah Wright exploded like a nuclear rocket. How can a person who has had no involvement in this campaign have such a devastating impact? Why are so many intelligent people being sucked into this distraction?

(Disclosure: I publicly endorsed Senator Obama prior to the New York primary, and I have made financial contributions to his campaign. I have no role in his campaign, and I have never met or spoken with him.)

Two things prompt my concern: 1) This situation has been seized upon by people who are seemingly intent on destroying Obama's candidacy; and 2) the general public has a fundamental misunderstanding of the black-church experience. The first group is a distinct minority. Based on comments I have been hearing recently, and with continuing new revelations, the second could become a significant majority.

In this environment it is easy to succumb to theories of conspiracies. Even though they are difficult to prove, we know that anything is possible in today's world. However, in this particular instance, I believe that the symptoms that Disraeli described are at work. Too many of us "are ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts and feelings."

As of this writing, the negative perceptions of the Reverend Wright are based on 30-second sound bites. I have yet to see any media outlet run the entire sermons from which these snippets were taken. Why is this important? Because seeing those messages in their entirety might better explain the context. It is quite possible that some minds might remain unchanged, but the viewer will clearly see that this man is not a "raving maniac."

Jeremiah Wright is a seminary-trained pastor and widely respected theologian, with four earned degrees including the doctorate of ministry. His 6,000-member church is a part of a mainline, predominantly white Protestant denomination, the United Church of Christ. He has been the pastor of the Trinity church in Southside Chicago for 36 years. If he were the one-dimensional vitriolic ideologue portrayed in the videos, it is highly unlikely that he would have survived in that institutional setting for so long without drawing public scrutiny.

Unlike many of his fiercest critics, Dr. Wright served in the military. But he also has been fighting a war on the south side of Chicago for nearly four decades, against poverty and disinvestment, illiteracy and drug abuse, slum housing and joblessness, HIV/Aids and mindless street violence. Many of his critics have been AWOL in that campaign as well. This pastor has grown a small church into an influential institution that ministers to the needs of its congregants and neighbors through an array of 70 different programs and missions.

The preaching style of Dr. Wright has also shocked people who are unfamiliar with the black church. Let me be clear that not all churches, black or white, worship in the same style. Some follow a standard pattern that deviates very little from Sunday to Sunday. Some worship in a very quiet and stately manner, with words and music that never rise above a certain decibel level. Everything fits neatly within a pre-determined time frame, usually an hour.

Then there are churches whose services are exuberant and emotional, where the music is pulsating and the sermons are clamorous. They are also very spontaneous. Whatever the spirit moves you to do, you do, whether it's stretching a song from five minutes to 20, or the preacher needing an hour to make his or her points. There is no rushing here; people come to "have a good time praising God."

The highlight, after all of the praying, testifying, and singing, is the preaching. Sermons are often well-honed works of scholarship and imagery, full of biblical and secular metaphors and generously sprinkled with allegory, colloquialisms, and hyperbole. Often the message deviates from the written text for a spontaneous observation. These messages start out very low-key and often end in euphoria. They are designed to lift the spirit and to sooth the soul. Tremendous emotions can erupt during these sermons, which is as much due to the style of delivery as to the content of the message. The sermon in a black church can never be evaluated based on any one idea that is contained in it. It must be viewed in context.

The key is that these services are carefully calibrated to minister to the needs of the congregants. Many black churches minister to people who are on the lower end of the economic and political spectrum. They look to the church and pastor for signs of hope and optimism to deal with life's challenges for the coming week. Love him or revile him, this is the need that Dr. Wright fills.

Three important points must be remembered. First, we are electing a president, not the head of a church. The issues in this campaign are much too important to be distracted by matters this trivial. Not one of these offending words has been uttered by Senator Obama. If we are going to make important decisions about leadership and policy, we must judge the words and actions of the candidates and not their associates.

Second, whether or not we agree with the tone and substance of Wright's words, he is guaranteed the right to make them, in the same way that David Duke, William Shockley, Rush Limbaugh, and other rightwing ranters are protected This constitutional privilege cannot be selectively applied or withheld.

Third, Senator Obama is guaranteed the right to choose the church which best suits him and his family's spiritual needs. He has no more right to censor his pastor and the words he preaches than any other of the 6,000 parishioners.

For 16 years prior to becoming mayor, I attended and played music at the New Bethel CME Church, pastored for 42 years by the Reverend Raymond L. Graves. No one questioned my fitness to govern because of my connections to this very controversial minister. Even when I might have disagreed with some of the things he said and did, my decision to remain in that church for as long as I did owed more to the overall quality of its services and the good works that pastor and church were doing in a very poor section of the city.

The 2008 presidential election could offer a landmark opportunity for our country to change the way we deal with each other, and with the world community. We must use this time between now and November to focus attention on the qualities that we will demand from our next president, and to closely scrutinize the programs and solutions that he or she advances to solve long-standing problems and newly emerging situations. We cannot afford to become side-tracked by irrelevancies that are interjected into the campaign to keep us tethered to the failed strategies and programs of the past. Nor can we cavalierly destroy the candidate who promises to help heal a divided and fractious nation.

(Johnson, the former Rochester mayor, is Distinguished Professor of Public Policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology.)